Planning Commission Agenda 07-05-2005
.
.
.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, .JULY 5th, 2005
6:00 P.M
Commissioners:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison:
c; len Posusta
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
I. Call to order.
2. Approval ofthe minutes of the special Planning COlnmission meeting held Tuesday, June7th,
2005.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments.
5. Continued Public llearing - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
relating to Open and Outdoor Storage.
Applicant: City of Monticello
6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
relating to filing procedures for formal applications of Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use
Permits, Planned Unit Developments and Variances, and to amend the ordinance to define
Simple Subdivisions and the application process related to Simple Subdivisions.
Applicant: City of Monticello.
7. Continued Public lIearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit [L)f a
Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Monte Club Villas, a 14.18 acre residential
development consisting of 26 detached townhome units.
Applicant: L & G, LLC
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 840 square
foot Detached Accessory Structure in an R-I (Single-Family) District.
Applicant: Barry Spiers
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance to allow encroachment of an entry
vestibule into the required 30' front yard setback in an R-l district.
Applicant: David Vukelich
10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-
through pharmacy facility in the Central Community District.
Applicant: Snyder Drug Stores, Inc.
.
11. Puhl ic Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Variance and Amendment to Conditional
Use Permit to allow additional pylon and wall signage at an automobiles sales facility in a
B-3 (Highway Business) District.
Applicant: Monticello Motors
12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development for Taco John's Restaurant, a convenience food establishment in a 8-4 district.
Appl icant: ,I AT Restaurants
13. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for the Jefferson at Monticello development, an approximately
875 acre development consisting of approximately 2700 residential units over 515 acres, 328
acres of community property/open space and 32 acres of commercial development.
Applicant: Heritage Development
14. Consideration to call for a public hearing to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating
to joint access and joint drives and for parking lot setbacks.
15. Adjourn.
.
.
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TLJESDA V, .JUNE 7th, 2005
6:00 P.M
Commi ss ioners:
Dick hie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
Counci I Liaison:
Glcn Posusta
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
I. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the Illecting to order at 6:00 PM and noted a full quorum of the
Commission.
2. A roved oft/Ie minutes of the s ecial Plannin Commission mcetinO" held Tuesda Ma 23rd 2005.
Commissioner Spartz made the correction that City Planner Steve Grittman was not in
attendance at the special meeting.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL
MEETING OF MA Y 231", 2005, WITH CORRECTIONS AS NOTED.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Considcration ofaddinf!: itcms to the af!enda.
Conllllissioncr Spariz requested an update on drainage issues in Carlisle Village as item 16.
4. Citizen comments.
NONE.
5.
Continued Publ ic Hearin - Amendmcnt to Ordinance for 0 en and Outdoor Stont e
Applicant: Citv of Monticello
Chairman hie indicated that staff had recommended tabling the item until the ad hoc
committee reviewing the amendment had an opportunity to meet and come forward with a
rccommendation.
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
6.
Continued Public Hearino - Consideration ofa ree uest for a Conditional Use Permit for 0
and Outdoor Stora e for the stora e and rental of vehicles in a B-3 Hi -'hwa Business
District. Aopl icant: Enterprise Rent-a-Car
.
Grittman provided the staff report, illustrating the revisions made to the appl icant' s proposed
plan. At the May meeting of the Commission, the amount of required parking was an issue
for this proposal. The applicant and the property owner have met to find relocated space for
the parking. Grittman stated that with the revisions as shown, parking requirement would be
satisfied. Staff recommends approval with those modifications.
Spartz asked Grittman which of the two options City staff prefers. Grittman stated that either
option meets the requirements. The option chosen is up to the applicant.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Rick Mendlik, representing Enterprise Rent-a-Car, made himself available for questions.
Hearing no comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten asked Mendlik if the rental facility would ever have more than 8 cars on the site.
Mendlik indicated that they would not. If there were a circumstance under which there were
more, Enterprise would make arrangements for the extra cars to be located on the aCCOunt
properties in town.
.
Dragsten restated his concerns regarding the number of cars parked on the street.
Suchy asked if the trailer currently parked on the property would stay in the driveway on a
permanent basis. John Johnson, property owner, stated that the trai leI' cOlnes and goes.
Suchy asked jfthere would be a problem with the additional vehicle storage in rear. Johnson
indicated that it would not present a problem in most circumstances.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV At OF THE
CUP, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE RELOCATED STORAGE AREA
WITHIN THE EXISTING FENCE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF THE
SITE, NOR WITH HIE TRAFFIC ON THE ADJACENT STREET.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Continued Public lfearin f_ Consideration of are lIest for a Sim
COnfOf/llin un laUed lots in a PZM Performance Zoned-M ixed
Applicant: Antoinette Breiwick
Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicants are seeking a simple subdivision that
would essentially be a re-subdivision of existing lots. Both of the resulting lots would meet the
required lot standards for the PZM district. Grittman indicated that Lot 2 would become available
for further development at which time the applicant will have to bring a full development plan
forward.
~
....
Grittman stated that staff s primary Concern was whether the legal description flJr the new lots
would be acceptable to Wright County. Grittman reported that the applicant has indicated that
they had met with the County, who had provided assurance that the legal is acceptable. Grittman
2
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
.
stated that staff recommend approval of the simple subdivision with the condition of Wright
County's acceptance and recording of the legal description of the plat.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Leslie Pratt, 514 Elm Street, addressed the Commission. Pratt asked where the access point for
the proposed property would be located. Pratt stated that there is a significant problem in the area
with traffic not stopping at the Elm and 61" corner. Pratt expressed her concern that further
development on this site may exacerbate this problem. O'Neill stated that there are plans to
extend t" Street and that will help alleviate the traffic in the area. O'Neill stated that currently,
the best way to handle that problem is to bring it to the attention of the Sheriffs Department.
Dragsten asked if it is possible for the south lot line to just continue to the back of the entire
parcel. Grittman stated that in that case, the back portion of the lot would become unusable; this
lot line orientation allows more usable land for the other lot. Dragsten explained that in many
cases, that "flag" area has a tendency to get lost in terms of platting and legal.
Hilgart corrected that the lot area would be 44,007 square fect rathcr than 440,007 noted in
the staff report. Hilgart asked if there plans to put a single home on the larger lot, or whether it
was planned to be a future subdivision with multiple homes.
.
The applicant, Antoinette Rreiwick, 6107 Wildwood Way, and property owner Ronald Ruff came
forward to provide further information to the Commission. Rreiwick stated the larger lot would be
sold, with the intention that it would be combined with other parcels for development.
Frie asked if Breiwick and Ruff understood that if further development is proposed, they will need
to Come back to the Commission with the appropriate planning and building review information.
The applicants confirmed.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION CREATES TWO FULLY CONFORMING LOTS IN THE P/M
DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO WRITTEN VERI FICA lION OF LEGAL PARCEL
STATUS BY WRIGHT COUNTY.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOT/ON CARRIED.
8. Public lJearin - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zonin I Ordinance relatinG to filin ,
rocedures for formal a lieations of Pre/iminar Plat Conditional Use Permits Planned
Unit Develo ments and Variances and to amend the ordinancc to define Sim Ie Subdivisions
and the a .lication roeess related to Sim Ie Subdivisions.
Applicant: City of Monticello.
Frie repol1ed that staff recommended continuing the item to the next mceting of the Commission.
.
MOT/ON BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR
CONSIDERATION TO AMEND THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING
TO FILING PROCEDURES FOR FORMAL APPLICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY PLAT,
CONDIT/ONAL USE PERMITS, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND VARIANCES,
AND TO AMEND TIlE ORDINANCE TO DEFINE SIMPLE SURDIVISIONS AND THE
APPLICATION PROCESS RELA TED TO SIMPLE SUBDIVISIONS.
"
-,
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
.
9.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED.
Public Ilearin - Consideration of are uest for a Conditional Use Pcrmit for as ecialllome
Occu ation allowin for an in-home hair care salon in an R-2 Zonin _ District.
Applicant: Torn and Kristy Brion
Patch reviewed the staff report, stating that the appl icant requests a Conditional Use Permit
for a special home occupation permit to allow hair care salon services at her horne, located in
an R-2 district, at 339 East 41h Street.
Patch stated that the proposed use and associated operation is similar to other uses allowed by
special permit. Patch eXplained that the applicant has indicated that the salon will be a one-
client operation, with a single station. The salon will have no other employees. Patch stated
that as it appears that the use proposed is no different than other home occupation uses
allowed and that the use wi II meet all of the code requirements, staff is recommend ing
approval of the CUP.
Chairman hie opened the public hearing. Applicant Kristy Brion, 339 East 4th Street, made
herself available for questions.
.
Dragsten asked Brion about proposed hours of operation. Brion stated that it would most likely be
and Monday through Friday, 9AM to 8 PM by appointment. Frie asked the applicant to confirm,
as it will be put into the record for the permit. O'Neill stated that he believed the code allowed
such activity until] 0 PM. Brion stated that hours would then be 9 AM to 9 PM, Monday through
Friday.
Dragsten confirmed with Brion that she would have only I chair.
Suchy asked where the entrance to the salon would be. Brion stated that the entrance would be on
New Street.
Frie asked if Brion had applied before. Brion stated that she had applied, but had not moved
forward with the request at that time.
MOTION BY SPARTZ RECOMMEND APPROV AI, OF THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A SPECIAL flOME OCCUPATION FOR AN IN-HOME HAIR CARE
SALON BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION
SECTION OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a) The salon maintain only one chair.
b) The salon operate Monday through Friday only.
c) The salon operating hours will be 9 AM _ 9 PM.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED.
-
Frie asked if they should add conditions on signage or lighting. Patch responded that special
home occupations are limited in terms of lighting and signage. They would be as required by
ordinance.
-
4
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
.
]0.
Grittman introduced thc item, stating that Hcritage Development has been working on their
dcvelopment plan for somc time. They have met with staff and held two public meetings to gathcr
inpnt and di,ection in developing the plan. They have made a fo,mal application fm concept stage
pun, which is the Hrst step in the City's f()fJnal review proccss for what is a very large project for
the City.
Grittman stated that there arc a number of applications in order for this project to proceed,
including a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Grittman eXplaincd that the comp plan has guided
the area for industrial, low density and open space uses. Cirittman stated that the changes that
Heritage is requcsting would redesignate the entirc area in terms of land use and that the project
requires a significant amount of infrastructure improvement.
.
Duc to the size and complexity of the proposed plan, Grittman repolied that statfhad prepared a
significant report. Grittman stated that as a result of the amount of material to be revicwed and
staff s outl ining of issues within the repOli, the appl icant has asked for continuation. Grittman
statcd that while the applicant has rcquested tabling, it is still important to introduce the basic
concept of the project to the Commission in order to faci I itate an understanding of issues and
discuss the issues that impact a recommendation.
The developmcnt plan proposed reflects approximately 2600 units over an 890 acre site, with
Silver Springs Golf Course representing a significant part of that area. The applicants have
indicated that the con"e wonld be ,emodeled. It is the intention of the applicant that ,edesigning
of the coursc would occur while building residences.
Grittman noted that a little less than 1900 units are shown as attached housing. With that noted,
Grittman stated that the first question fi..)/" the Commission should be the eomprchensive plan
i"ue. Idcntifying whethe, the p"'posed uses ace acceptable will ",sis! the develope, in designing
the plat to that ideal.
Grittman stated that other primary considerations include the extensive infrastructure need to
serve the development in terms of cost and maintenance, and the basic increase in population.
Another significant issue is marketability. Grittman noted that ifthc City is going to be involved
in coo,dinating and maintaining the infmstmctnce, it will need an unde"tandiug of how the City
will pay for the improvements once it is developed.
Grittman referred back to the land use issues, stating that the current plan shows only 10% of the
single f~ll11ily lots at base R-I standards. The balance of the single family lots are at sizcs less than
that, and when coupled with the significant amount of attachcd units, illustrates a signitcant
departure fi'om what the City has expressed in terms of housing mix.
..-..
Another issue noted by Cirittman was the high number of units without access to amenities such as
wetlands and golf COurse. Staff's concern is if the central housing component is intended to be
high-end based on this exposure, how will the concept work without the exposure.
......
5
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
.
Grittman stated that the plan also reflects a large trade-off of industrial and commercial land for
high-density residential development. The developers have indicated that they would rely on the
land north of Orchard Road for industrial. Grittman stated that while that may be reasonable, the
Commission will still need to discuss this shift.
Lastly, Grittrnan identified the developer's proposed phasing as a potential issue. The concept
proposed relics on phasing in of one of the primary amenities, the golf course, while expecting to
bui Id a sign i (jcant amount of housing prior to final izing the COurse. Grittman stated that if the
COurse is to be a primary amenity for the development, how can the City be assured that the
amenity will be completed.
Grittman commented that each of these issues poses questions that the Planning Commission and
Council will need to consider and respond to as part of any comprehensive plan amendment and
recommendation. Grittman noted that the staff report addresses all of these issues in detail. As a
result, Grittman eXplained that the request to table is a good one, as it will enable staff and the
developer to review the plan in greater detail and provide further follow-up. It will also allow the
Commission to digest the 25 page report and understand the implication of both the project and
report.
.
Frie asked Grittman how the Commission couldjusti(y only a 30-day continuation in light of all
of the significant questions raised. Grittman stated that they do not expect a fully revised plan
within 30 days, but it is hoped that the City and developer would have some of the major
questions answered in terms of land use and whether the developer can move forward with the
concept plan. Grittman noted that significant changes to the current plan will result in a new
application.
frie stated that the staff report contained a finding of fact to support a recommendation for den ial
of the concept plan. Frie noted that this document clearly outlined that the proposed project is
inconsistent with the City's comprehensive in terms of the balance of housing mix, industrial and
commercial land availability, and density. hie noted that ifnothing else, he would like it on the
record and stressed that for all future developments, the developers will need to follow the
comprehensive plan. Frie recommended that developers who do not meet the cornp plan should
not bring their items to the Commission.
Frie requested that public have an opportunity to COmment. Grittman recommended that the
COmments might best be made generally, rather than talking about details that may change.
Grit/man responded to Frie's comment on the comprehensive plan compatibility issues. The
developer did understand that they would be requesting a depaliure from the plan. They have the
right to request an amendment to plan. Grittman noted that staff had requested that if the
developer was going to make a comprehensive plan amendment request, they should bring a plan
forward. That request was made so that Commission and staff could get an idea of the scope of
the amendment. However, Grittrnan highlighted that it is always the City's right to deny the comp
plan amendment.
Frie noted that each Commissioner has a I ist of questions related to the staff report.
-
Frie asked one person to speak for the general public in the area of the development. Frie stated
that he understood that Heritage was going to meet with the general public and inquired whether
that had taken place.
Jim Moore, 2169 120th Street, addressed the Commission. Moore stated that the developers had
6
Planning Commission Minutes 06107/05
.
visited his house with other neighbors. While Moore stated that while hc still isn't happy with the
design of the plan, the developer has shown a wi II ingness to work with neighbors. Fric asked if
there would be another mecting between the developers and neighbors. Moore repOlied that it had
been disc"ssed, although nothing had been formally set up. Frie asked if Monre was speaking on
behalf of all the residents of Devron Greens. Moore stated that while each propcrty Owner might
have different issues, for the most part they stand as a group.
Posusta agrecd that this item should be continued. Posusta stated that he believes that he speaks
for thc majority of the Counci I in that the plan seenlS "upside down" in terms of the attached to
detached home ratio. Posusta stated that he believes the prc~ject should be more balanced.
POsusta expressed that perhaps Heritage should revise their concept to include many more upper
bracket homes. Posusta stated that per/laps neighbors in Devron Greens would be more receptive
to the project in that case.
hie complimented Grittman on the report preparcd. hie agreed that the Cutrent phasing plan
seems to promote low value housing. Posusta also agreed, explaining his concern is that in many
circumstances, developments regress from where they start, which isn't a good indicator for this
project.
.
Frie commented that to p"t neighbors concerns about property val"e in perspective, the property
owner could have built an unattractive shed on the property line bctween Devron Cirecms and thc
project site, and there wouldn't be anything the Planning Commission could do. However, Frie
noted that in light of the current proposal, the Commission has the opportunity to proceed with
discretion. Frie stated that he would likc to see neighbors keep a verbal communication with the
developers in moving forward. Moore Commcnted that beyond pcrsonal issues, the property
Owncrs are looking at the big picture as well.
Chairman Frie officially opened the public hearing. Tom Moorcs, 748 10 I 'I Street, stated that he
has an interest share in a piece of property in the middle of this development. Moore stated that
the developer has never contacted him about development plans. Moore expressed concern that
the developers didn't research property ownership carefully and had never contact him about
selling his propeliy. O'Neill eXplaincd that al/ property included in the development plan will
need to be accounted for in the final project as all propcriy Owners have to bc shown on that
application.
Dan Lemm, 11380 Camcron A venue NE, asked that the developers contact all Owncrs in the
surrounding arca regarding the project as the proposal moves forward.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Fric closed the public hearing. Frie asked the public to
watch for further public hearing notices on this item.
Hilgart agreed that the golf Course should not bc considered when calculating density. Hilgari
also agreed with othcr staff comments on phasing and the housing mixes in the phases. Hilgart
idnetified that there are no R-I A size lots, which help to guarantee high end housing. Hilgart
stated that the number of 50 foot lots and the density ratio are also concerns. Hilgart indicated
that the developer should revise the plan to be more consistent with thc comprehensive plan ratio.
Dragstcn stated that he is in favor of continuing the item as well. He recommended that the
devcloper work with staff to resolve the issues noted. He reserved his Comments until the plan is
revised.
Spartz asked when thc AUAR would be complcte. O'Neill reported that a draft is available.
7
Span, echoed the other Com missioner's concerns on dens ity. S panz stated that the stalf repon
was thorough and hopes developer looks through it.
O'Neill explained that there is a danger in running parallel the AUAR analysis and planning
process" the AUAR may determine that changes need to be made as pan ofmitigation measures.
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
.
Suchy staled that she h" three pages of notes and questions on this plan, which leads her to the
conclusion thai pemaps it doesn't reflect sman planning at this time. SUChy stated drat t she will
also hold her comments to the next meeting but Concurred with the staff repon. Suchy
recommended that the developer be given and follow the City's ratios and standards
Frie stated that wished to comment on two issues. First, Frie repOned Ihat Ihe 2000 Census
illustrated that Monticello was rao ked first for the n um ber 0 I'm u lti. la m iI y Un its Constructed and
available in the County. Frie stated thai the City is still seeing that number gmw. Frie stated that
SUch an im ha lance of housi ng is unaeeeplable. F rie commeuted tlrat perhaps the C ily should
review a PO",ible moratorium on attached condo and townhome projects.
.
Secondly, Frie expressed eonsiderahle dismay at the misuse of Planned Unit Deve/opments and
their definition under the ordiuance. Frie questioned why the Cnmmission should eVen consider a
PUD that is '101 consiSlent with the PUD ordinance and the camp plan. Frie noted that while he
understands the comp plan is not written in cement, the Commission must weigh amendments and
changes in Use carefulIy.
Frie Slated while he understands Ihat the developers have paid high prices for land, it is not the
City's responsibilily to make their pm fit ntargins Work. Frie stated thaI density is heing misused
10 make pmjecls profitablc. He commented that it seems that developers use the pUD to
circumvent the ordinance. hie recommended that the Planning Commission review the pun
ordinance 10 eliminate these circumstances. Frie stated that there are signilicant issues with the
conccpl plan and the C omm ission hasn't eVen Scratched tire surface of tire enli re scope 0 I' the
project Frie asked for the reaction of other Commissioners to his comments.
Suchy, Spanz, Dragsten and Hilgan all agreed wilh Frie's assessment of the pUD Use. hienoled
that the manner of cUrrent puns puts staff between a rock and a hard place in determining a
pn~iect recommendation.
pOst"ta commented that the proposed concept shows a higher density than Hennepin County; the
highest ralio in the area. pOSusta stated Ire has serious concerns abnut that item, as the market
may not be able to bear the density.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR CONCEPT
STAGE PLANNED UN IT DEVELOPM ENT FOR JEFFERSON A l' MONTICELLO FOR 30
DA YS TO NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTiON CARRIED.
II. Public Hearin - Consideration ofa re uestlor a Conditional Use Permil for a Conee t Sta e
Planned Unit Develo ment for Monte CJuh Villas a 14.18 acre residential devclo ment
eonsistin '0126 detached townhome units. A lieant L & G LLC
Grit,",an provided the staIf repon on this item, explaining that comprehensive plan issues will
need to be addressed in this item, as well. The proPosal does illustrate a low.density project
8
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
.
consisting of single family detached townhomes with association. Grittman stated that in this
case, the developer is relying On the PUD designation to vary some ordinance requirements.
C,i"man stated that the plan does pmv;de p,;vatc stceets. Howeve" stairs Concem ;s designing
with the heavily sloped site and heavily wooded north half Grittman reported that in the first
meeting with stafr, it was discussed that the comp plan calls tor preserving existing slopes,
vegetation. Staff's COncern is that the proposal as shown requires regrade of a significant portion
of thc s;tc. Ccittman expla;ned that typc of development style ;s not consistent with the pol;cy nf
the comp plan.
Add i6onally, staff had d; scusscd the possihi I ity of look;n g at thc entice "ea, ; nel ud;n g the C; ty' s
public land, comprehensively to determine what could be developed to preserve woodlands and
work with the topography. At that time, a potential land trade had bcen discussed. However, that
type of proposal presents its Own issues in terms of the type of tree growth and location and the
Parks Commission's concern over a land trade.
Grittman explained that the Parks Commission plan was more aggressive and required land
dedication and then the purchase of remainder to accommodate a public park connection from
existing park to Fenning Avenue. However, at this time, Grittman reported that it is the
developer's desire to move forward with the original concept plan.
.
Grittman stated that staW s recommendation is to look for options or alternatives to th is plan as
means to preserve views. Grittman noted that there are positive reasons to use a PUD as it allows
flexibility to accomplish positive results. However, Grittman stated that the key to using it
Successfully is to make sure that it works to accomplish the City's goals.
Frie confirmed that the eOlllp plan identifies the hill as a significant natural feature. Grittman
added that although the property is not currently in the City, upon annexation it comes in as
Ag'icu"u,e/Opcn space, and than is cezoned. The comp,ehcns;ve plan's loug mngc land use map
designates the property as commercial.
Hi Igart asked if it would be feasible to allow to an increase density on southern half in order to
preserve northern slope. Grittman stated that in terms of the unit style and the developer's
intention to deliver a high-end product, they would need a significant redesign.
F,;c inqu;ecd ahout the pmposed shaced d,;veways. C,ittman eI"ified that the sha,ed d,iveways
were proposed by the developers and eXplained that shared driveways have worked Successfully in
other high-end projects. Dragsten also noted that the shared driveways are On a private street.
Skip So,enson, pmject acehitect, explaiued that the uu;t exte,io, will he stone with appmx;mately
2000 squ"e teet of fin;shcd main noo, space with h"ement and attached gamge. fie an6c;pates
the units to sell in the upper $400,000. The development will be governed by an association and
each unit is arranged as to have a localized view with retaining walls to create yards. Sorenson
stated that the developer has received a strong interest in the project from the community.
Sorenson stated that a preliminary concept plan showing a possible land trade was submitted to the
Parks Commission. However, after their comments, they decided develop within their Own site.
.
Frie asked if the covenant documents had yet been prepared. Sorenson indicated they had not.
John Bogart, prqject engineer, confirmed that the product is intended to be unique, with high-
quality views, landscaping and f~19ade detail.
9
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
.
Sorenson stated that the product will be marketed to the 50+ age bracket, who are looking for
association maintained and maintenance free housing. A Board of Directors will be appointed to
maintain those documents.
Frie asked if the developers were receptive to any of the options presented. Frie eXplained that
while he felt the developers were moving in the right direction in terms of product, there was still
concern over the use of the land. Frie stated that rather than denial, he preferred to continue the
item so that the developer has an opportunity to discuss and review all options.
Posusta stated that the Parks Commission is not the ultimate arbiter of land options and asked if
the developers are receptive to one road rather than two. Butch Lindentelser, propeliy owner,
stated that they looked at that option, but didn't want to encroach on City land. Lindenfelser
stated that he preferred to stay on their OWn property. Posusta commented on private drives in
relationship to fire department concerns. Bogart noted the statement for future development stage
design Work.
O'Neill asked POsusta about the corridor of park land on the second tier, which could connect City
parkland to Fenning Avenue. O'Neill asked if Council would entertain the option of purchasing
land in that area outside of the park dedication in order to create a band of green space. Posusta
stated he doesn't know if developer is willing to do that, hut Council would consider the option,
although the money factor would play into Council's decision. Lindefelser stated that he can't
answer definitively without discussing with his partner.
.
Frie asked for the developer's project timeframe. Bogart stated that they would like to be ready
for spring home construction with roadways and utilities in by October.
Hearing no tilrther comment, Chairman hie closed the publ ic hearing.
Suchy stated that she is unsure about the number of units in terms of keeping areas available so
that others can enjoy the amenities. Suchy suggested that the developers even consider per/laps
keeping some commercial land use. Suchy noted that her other concern is the private streets. She
explained that as the City received many complaint calls about private street maintenance, the
requirements and responsibilities need to be spelled out with homeowners.
Spartz indicated that his primary concern is the visual impact on the hill. Spartz stated that while
he feefs the developer is on track in terms of the product proposed, the nlHnber of units may be
high. I-Ie concurred with the recommendation to continue the item.
Dragsten stated that he doesn't see advantage in trading off land in terms of savings trees.
However, he explained that he is concerned about the width of the proposed lots, the spacing of
the roads and the width of roads. As a PUD, he stated that he wants to see very detailed plans of
homes at the next review level.
Bogart stated that lot widths are currently at 60 feel and the road is 26 feet f~lce to face. He stated
that this can be adjusted. Dragsten asked about spacing of the entrance drive. Bogart stated that
they had met with City and County and believes it is acceptable spacing.
.
Hilgart's agreed that the land swap isn't a good idea. Hilgart suggested that it was most likely
guided for commercial on the comp plan land use map because of its existing status. Hilgali
compl imented the developer on sending the message to other developers that R-I A homes can be
built. Hilgart noted that while he doesn't approve of losing all the trees, he is conscious of the fact
10
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07105
that it is the developer's land to develop as they would like.
Posusta stated that the developer should at least look at staffs idea ofa trade-off. The goals of
saving trees and view should at least by considered. Posusta asked if the homes would he
overlooking townhomes, and in that case, is the view truly an amenity.
Bogart stated that each house will he on a slightly different level so that the southern row would
ovcrlook the northern tier, and then over the top of the multi-family.
Posusta asked if the developers had discounted a land swap because the Parks Commission didn't
like the plan they had proposed. Bogart stated that the Parks Commission's reception of their plan
was ncgative. O'Neill stated that the land the Parks Commission saw was not what was shown in
the land swap examples provided by staff. O'Neill stated that the ncgative reaction was to the plan
presented to the Commission which encroached into the parkland and reduced trees. The Parks
Commission took a positive view of a land swap that would save oaks woods and then create the
connection in front of the development. The Parks Commission suggested requiring SOme in
dedication and some in purchase. Posusta asked what the required land dedication would be for
the development. Grittrnan stated at the current density, it would be about]. I acres. Bogart stated
that they are aware of park dedication requirement, and the plan provides a little hetter than J. J
acres of park dedication on Outlot A.
Suchy stated that she feels strongly that the woodlands need to be preserved, noting that there are
only a few pieces of property that contain trees in Monticello, and they need to preservcd.
Hilgart stated that in a way he agrees, but the developer is keeping the overall density low, and
building something larger than what is typically proposed. Hilgart stated that the developer could
always propose something higher in density and lower in quality just to preservc the trees. Suchy
responded that in that case, the Planning Commission still has the latitude to deny the request.
Dragsten agreed with Hilgart in that this plan presents an opportunity to see upscale scale housing
and that destroying the view defeats the high-end product.
Spartz stated that he thinks the item should be continued in order to research options, noting that
hc, too is concerned about tree loss. If there is no good solution result, he indicated that this plan
may suffice.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FOR MONTE CLUB VILLAS, A 14./8 ACRE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF 26 DETACHED TOWNHOME UNITS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT
MORE TIME IS NECESSARY TO REAERCH OTHER PTlONS FOR PLAN FOR MONTE
CLUB VILLAS TO JULY MEETING.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
12.
Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the development proposal shows 171 single-family
units to he developed in two phases. The project, located in east Monticello, sOllth of County
II
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
Road 39, cOn,i sts of a laege aeea of Woods and wetland in the south ,ection. G eittman eeported
that the developee is Pmposing R-I zoning in the north seclion and R-I A Zoning in the south.
Geittrnan explained that due to the tcees in the 'outlwm seclion, the developec will PCeliminary plat
(hat acea in a futuee phase. That allows time lac a tcee invento,y in oedee to align steeets and lot
lines to peesecvc a, many tcees as possihle. Geittman stated the staff eeport eecommends that the
live lots along east side he withheld so that madway lOcations ace not lixed in this acea
As this is a celative/y steaightlaewacd plat that Complies with the Zoning oedinaoces, Geiltman
ceported that staft is cecom mend in g appmval of the pcelim ioacy plat and ceZOn in g with the
conditions that the applicant eeceives appmval hom County foe access, that the appmpciate pack
dedication is ce'<",ed foe Southcm ponion, that the live lots mentioned ace cemoved, and that (he
applicant cespond to the cequ i cements of C it Y En gi neee.
Feie complimented Paumen nn heinging taewa'd a plan consistent with the City's compcehensive
plan. Chairman hie opened public hearing.
Bead Paumen, applicant and pmperty ownec, c/acilied that the plat will actually be 165 lots.
Paumen stated that he is Woeking with adjacent pmpetty nWnee Mack Woo/stcn to Upgcade the
pmpenies in tenns of thc wetland and Wooded nmenities. Panmen Slated that he will pceseeve as
many tcees as pnssihle and noted that the development plan, Contain twice the Pack dedication
cequiced by oedinance. He ecpOrted that he and Woolston ace investing monies in active Packs,
elevated walkways aem" wetlands. Paumen cefecenced his expeeience in developing othec high-
end pmjeCls. Paumen also noted (hat his development will pm vide impmvements tu help cesolved
the Ditch 33 drainage problem.
Feie asked iftlwce ace County concems cegacding Ditch ]3. Paumen cesponded that the City
Engineec and County ace WO'king thmugh those coneen" to coincide with this develnpment
Feic inquiced whethee the fact that this paceel is not COntiguous to the City peesents a pmhlem.
John Rogart, pmjcct engineee, stated that WOOlston, who OWns the contiguOus pacec/, will he
moving foCWacd SOOn. O'Neill also explained that via the annexation agceement, the Rivecside
Acees development is consideced COntiguous foe the pnepo,< nfanneXing adjacent paccels.
Paumen noted thatthey had met with staff a n u mbee of ti mes and Woeked tngClheno develop the
pmposed plan. Paumen stated that the Pack and wetlands Complexes will he completed liest He
also noted that the main focus foe utilities will be to fix watecshed pmb/ems. Paumen stated that
they will being tlw seCond phase (the outlot) t<>cwacd with linal plat, so that the Commissioo can
ceview the entice pceliminaey peioe to appmving the final plat Paumen stated that it is theie goal to
keep the road completely out of the WOods.
F cie asked locappeox imate lot peiees. Paumen stated thatthey ace look i ng at $100,000 1'0' lots
with home values at four times that.
Chairman hie opened tIle public hearing.
Tom Mooees, 748 104'" S tceet Northwest, addeessed the Com '0 i"ion, stating that h is son OWns a
house on Hall A venue. Mooces stated that his son eeceived a lettee on the puhlic heacing and is
concemed On how utilities ace being pcovided to the development. Bogart stated that the City and
developec have heen Woeking on the alignment, which may eUn along County 39 and Gillacd.
Moores asked who will pay foe the extensinn ffild if his Son will be assessed. Paumen 'tated that
tlley have been Woeking on this with the City with the idea that they Would be paying t<>c tconk
12
.
fees as ,equ.,ed and up-fmnt.ng the J;ft sta';on costs. They wdl also bc fix.ng County D.tch 33.
Moo",s "ked .f Sunsct R.dge .s go.ng to be Connccted to those uW.1y systems. Paumen stated
that · t wo u Id be I Doped though. Moo,es noted the locat.oo of h.s son's pmpcrty bet weeD the two
plats. Moo,es asked .fhe could stay .n the townsh.p. G,.tlman ,esponded that staff;s aWace of
the ownecsh.p of that pa,cel and .ts status as a townsh.p pa,ce/. G,.ttman stated that the develope,
has been asked to accommodate any futu,e connee';on, but as of now, they have to has.cally go
amund.t. G,.tlman stated that the futu,e connec';on concept plan .s not part of the CUceent
heac.ng, bot that staff ace wo,k.ng to ensu", that access can be pmv.ded to allow future
development. Moo",s d.sag,eed and stated that the develope" do not 'elu," h.s calls.
Planning Commission Minutes 06107/05
POSUsta asked thc deve/opees .fthey had contacted Moo,es about pucehase. Moo,es stated that
Rogart has been good about ,espood.ng. Posusta stated that .t was h.s undecstand.ng that the
developc, had contacted Moo,es' son, o/fe,ed a pc.ce, theo there was a countec offe,. Moo,es
stated that was untcue. Posusta noted that Mooces Would be an .sland oftownsh.p land, unless he
Wants to bc included.
h.c noted that the Mooces pacee/ '5 not .ncluded on the .tem on the agenda
.
Nancy Chadw.ck, 9747 Hall Aven"" addressed the Comm.ss.on, stat.ng that she .5 vecy happy
w.th th.s plan. As a ne.ghbo" she .s pleased to see What has been pmpnsed. Chaw.ck .nqu.,ed
what Would bappen to Hall Road thmugh hec ue'ghbo,hood. Rogart ,espooded tbat tbc port.on
thmugh that oe.ghbo,hood .5 a townsh.p mad, wh.ch the developec has no Contml oVec; the
port.on w.th.n thc pmposed development w.lI bc w.de,- Chadw.ck asked .f.t Was nece"a,y to
push .t thmugh. G,.tlman statcd that the connect.on .s an .mponant one as .t pmv.des altemat.ve
cmergcncy routcs to Scrvc Riverside Acres.
Tom Seh. lIewaen, 91 70 Hacd. 109 A ven uc, asked about d ca. nagc . n the acea. Paum en ",sponded
that Phd Elk.n of WSB, a sod hydrolog.st and wetlands expen, h" done a complete analys.s. The
capae.ty w.lI be t'.pled 0' beltee foc th.s dcvelopment. Paumen stated that they a", also wo,k.ng
w. th W ,. ght County Sod and Water to ensu", that all dca. nage . ssues ace add ressed and 'esol vcd.
M.ke Olqu.st .nqu.red what Would be the plan 10, anncxat.on oftownsh.p pa",e/s, .nclud.ng tI]ose
.n R.ve".de Acees, .nto the City. POSusta stated that acco,d.ng to the annexa';on ageeement theee
Would bc 110 requircmcnt to annex for tcn years.
Loo., I/.n.k", .nd.cated that he supponed the development. H.n.ker ""IU.ced wheth" he Would
know whether thc lift 'tat.on Was thece .n terms of no.se, d.sturbance, etc. Paumen stated no.
Hilliker askcd the developers to assist in solving thc Ditch 33 problem.
Heac.ng uo limh" comments, Cha.nnan F,.e closed the puhlie hear.ng
Dmgsteu asked .fthe Comm.ss.on ., appmv.ng the ent.ce plat, 0' just the nocth port.on. Gr.ttman
stated that the Comm.ss.on Would appmve the entice plat, w.th the undecstand.ng that there ace no
lots .n the south port.on until the second phase. Dmgsten "ked whether the develop" has
cons.dered knockdown barr.e" on lIal/ Road. G,.tlman "ated that m.ght be po".ble. Dmgsten
asked .fthe" Weee s.dewalks. G,.tlman stated that the plan pmv.des them and that code cequ.ces
sidcwalks on one side.
Spanz commented on the bu/fec between develnpment and R.vers.de Ace". Paumen confi,med .t
would stay.
Suchy complimented the proposed plan.
I3
.
Planning Commission Minutes 06/07/05
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
REZONING TO R-I AND R-' A, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH TilE SllRROllNmNG NEIGHBORHOOD,
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING REGllLA TlONS FOR REZONING
CONSIDERA TION.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART MOTION TO RECOMMEND
APPRO VAL OF TilE PRELlMIN AR Y P LA l' OF HID DEN FOREST, BASED ON
A FINDING THAT THE LAND II SE PATTERN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND TIIA l' THE PROPOSED PLA l' MEETS
THE R - I ZONING REGULA TfONS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS;
I. The 'pplicant will need to co"ive ,"c,,> 'ppmvo' 0"'0 CSAfl 39 /Com W,ight Coonty
2. A pock dedicoIion "qoi,ement" "t by City '"olotion ;, '",o,d,d with the devdopme",
COntract to be approved with the final plat, based on the phasing of park dedication.
.
3. The applicant "d";gn the plat to "move the 5 10" to the eo" of"Stcoet A" 01 thi, time.
Atmngcment of tho" 'ot, to be indoded in , f ",oco pha" of deve/opm,ntl,,, Ootlot D
The 'pplicant ",commod,t" the coquicome"" of the City Engioo,,', COport, dOled 6/1/05.
4.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED.
13. Con,idcm';on to a. mve, re,olu';on of the Cit of Monticello Plannin, Commi"ion findin" thM
' modi fieMion '0 the Redevelo ment P I'n tor Centml M on';eello Redcve 10 ment Pm' ect No. I
and a Tax Increment I' i n'nc in' PI,n for TI F 0 i 'trict No. 1-34 con lorm to the Geneml PI 01" tor
'he deveio men' and redeve 10 ment of the e it . A I icont: C it of Mon tieello
Kompehak pmvided the 't,ff report, "ating that the propo,ed r',olu';on a,k, Commi"ion '0
expand the TlF boundaric, to include the eorrent A VR ,ite and Dahlheimer ,itc on 'he e",t
and 'he Otter C,eek Cro'5ing area in the west. Koropehnk noted that the TlF dist,iet i, a
renewal and reoovation district, which by law require, that an inspection i, completed
Koropehak reported that an outside eon,ul'ant w"' hired to perlonn the inspection.. The
items will also go to the BRA and Council for their appropriate review.
Koropehak noted that tax increment is the tax value between the property today and what i,
being proPosed. The tax increment will be used for the City', cost only to otfset the ""t of
acquisition and ramps for interchange. It is not being used to cover the developer's co"s.
Frie asked if this will help cove, the eo't, for Highland Way. Koropehak "ated that it
doesn't cover any 0 f Ryan', eo'ts at all. Koropchak stated that Plan n ing C omm i"ion is to
review the plan for com pliance with 'he eomp plan', redevelopment intent.
MOTiON BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION THA l' A
MODiFICATiON TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO
REDEVELOPM ENT PROJECT NO. I AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
14
.
FOR TlF DISTRICT NO. 1-34 CON FORM TO THE GEN ERAL PLANS FOR TflE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
Planning Commission Minutes 06107/05
14. ~Olllnrehcnsive Plan Uoda@
MOTION SECONDED By COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
G,i"man 'eported that statfwould he wo,king to put togethe, a pmposal fo, a comp,ehensive
plan update for the next City Council meeting.
15. Communit Health AssesSlllent_ Summar LJ date
Suchy 'eported that she had attended a community Su,vey assessment "mina, p,e"nted by
the Univecsity of Minnesota. The a."essment was completed by ten college students who
looked at population, demog"'phic and development tcends in Monticello at the cequest of
W,ight COUnty Suchy pcesented the Commission with a "'mma,y of "sulls.
/6. Qtrlisle ViI/aile drainallc issues.
G,i"man stated that the develope, has been inlo'med of d,ainage issues and stated that it has
been made eleae that it is thei, numbee one peioeity. ne City Engineee also met with
prOperiy OWners to discuss the resolution of the problem.
.
17.
Adiourn
MOTION TO ADJOURN By COMMISSIONER SPARTZ.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
IS
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda --- 07/05105
5.
Public I-Iearin : Consideration of a re uest for an amendment to the 0 en and
Outdoor Storal!e rel!ulations. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
I{EFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Staff met this past week with the group of property owners in the Industrial Park to
discuss additional changes to the proposed Open and Outdoor Storage regulations.
The following additional items were raised for consideration in a final draft of the
amendment:
1. Dropping the requirement l()r 1-2 zoned properties to screen outdoor storage
li'om the industrial frontage street, based on the requirement that all
storage would be in the rear area of the property.
2. Adding definition to the" I 00%" screening requirement -_ including
consideration of gates, and other acceptable screening facilitics (such as
landscaping) that would not technically mcet the 100% analysis.
3. Adding definition to location from which screening must OCcur _ this includes
a discussion of height of storage. Staff will develop language that
identilies the screening as being at eye level as seen lrom the property line
of the subject property - higher screening can be used to allow lor higher
storage.
4. Amend language to allow for either landscaping "and/or" fencing as
acceptable screening, rather than requiring both, as the draft was originally
written.
StafTwill prepare these additional changes and distribute them to the group in mid-
July, with plans to bring a linal draft to the Planning Commission tor consideration at
its August, 2005 meeting.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to continue the request lor an amendment to the Open and Outdoor
Storage regulations to the August, 2005 meeting of the Planning Commission.
2. Motion of other.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends tabling action on the item to the August, 2005 regular meeting to
allow for additional review by the industrial business owners.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 07105/05
6.
J>ublic Hearin : Consideration of a re uest for amendments to the Monticello
Zonin and Subdivision Ordinances rc ulatin the rocessin of Varianees,
ConditionallJse Permits, Amendments, and Subdivisions. Applicant: Citv of
Monticello. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND
The attached amendments are proposed to allow for better scheduling of various
zoning and subdivision applications, and to provide for consistency between the
ordinance language and the City's practice. With the advent of the "60 Day Rule",
application scheduling and processing has acquired a series of specific deadlines to
ensure timely action and comprehensive review. These amendments increase the
allowable processing time to coordinate with state law, and also provide for adequate
review opportunity to help avoid the need to table action on simpler projects.
In summary, the amendments accomplish the following:
1. Adjust timing for Variance, Conditional Use Pertnit, and Amendment
applications to provide for a 30 day advance application deadline prior to
Planning Commission. This timing gives the stafTthe opportunity to
conduct an adequate review and work with the applicant to address
problems prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing. It is
expected that this amendment will reduce the need fIx extensive lists of
conditions on many applications.
2. Allows flJr Zoning Administrator initiation of zoning and subdivision
amendment requests to come before the Planning Commission and City
Counci I. This amendment is intended to allow the staff to suggest
amendments that can facilitate proper processing of applications, rather
than cause individuals the need to wait until an upcoming meeting for the
Planning Commission to call for a hearing. Occasionally, the staff
discovers an ordinance discrepancy that would most efficiently be handled
concurrent with other applications, but under the current language, cannot
be resolved until a later meeting.
3. Adjust timing Jor Preliminary Plats. The new language provides for increased
review time for proposed Preliminary Plat applications, and is expected to
minimize the need to seek review time extensions from smaller plat
req uests.
4. Establishes an Administrative Subdivision process Je)r simple lot splits that do
not warrant full Preliminary Plat documentation. The City's ordinance is
relatively intlexible fl.)r these types ofrequests.
Planning Commission Agenda -- 07/0S/0S
.
AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision I: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments.
I. Motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments as presented,
based on a finding that the amendments will provide for increased
efficiency in review, and expedited processing for private applicants.
2. Motion to recommend approval of only a portion of the proposed
amendments.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the proposed amendments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StatTrecommends adoption of the amendments. As noted, the intent of these
amendments is to provide for a more efficient flow of applications through the review
and approval process.
.
SLlI'PORTING DATA
A. Proposed Amendments
-
-
.
22-1 - Conditional Use Permits and Amendments
t? the a, }icant in ~ceordance with the ~e. uirements ofMinn, Stat ~ 15~99. ;;~ !~i::.g
::~: ~~~::~~;Jo~:~'~~~~~=~~:~~:~;~~~~:~t ~::~ t: ;i:~2:i~g
Administrator shall refer said application, along with all related information, to the City
Planning Commission for consideration and a report and rccommondation to the City
Council.
[lJ The City Council shall not grant a conditional Use permit nor take any action on any
zoning amendment until they have rcceived a report and recommendation Irom the Planning
Commission and t~e City ~talf :: ::7~~ : :~ :i~t: ~2 :;~: :a:,:::: :{.er the lirs. .
~egUlar Planning Ce~"nSGlOn I 0 J r e. a: 'B] e , If the Plannmg
Commission has not rovided a recommenda'ion within sixt 60 da s of the a Iication
deadline date the Cit Council ma consider the a lication without a Plannin Commission
recommendation.
.
22-2. AMENDMENTS -INITIATION. The City Councilor Planning Commission may,
upon their OWn motion, initiate a request to amend the text or the district bvundaries
of this ordinance. Any person owoing real estatc within thc city may initiate a request to
amend the district boundaries or text of this ordinance so as to aflect the said real estate. The
Zonin , Administrator ma initiate arc, uest to amend the district boundaries or text of this
ordinance lacin' the rec uest on the next Plannin' Commission meetin for. ublie hearin"
at wh ich ro er ubi ic notice can be rovided accordin to the rec ui rements of S tate law
23-1 Variances and Appeals
I ications for a Variance Ira m the terms of this ordinance shall be due no Jater than
four 4 weeks Jus one I da rior to .he Plannin' Commission mcetin at which the item
is to be considered, A lications that arc deemed incom lete as of that date shall be returned
to. the a , Ii cant i~ acc::rd:"~e ,:,i. tl: .,th:.. re uirem~nts iO.f ~i~n; _ s:.a i' "; 15,9.' i ~:q~~
::::::;; ;:een c; 5) ;;:;::;:~ %:;; : :0: : 0:,: ;:~~,; . ,~
en thc 3be~lda 3t the
!'egu,"r """'tiag 100lowing the ne)(t regular ",eeting. The Zoning Administrator shall reler
said request along wi th aJ I related infonnatio n to the Planning Comm issio n at I east len (I 0)
live m days prior to the regular meeting. This meeting shall be a public hearing, notice of
which shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting to all OWners of property,
according to the Wright County assessment records, within three hundred fifty feet (350') of
the property to which the variance rclates. When a variance request pertains only to yard
.
setback requirements, only abutting property Owners need be notified. Notices sent sball also
indicate the appeal process in Section 23-6, Subdivisions [G] through [f].
IE] The req uest shall be re ferred to the City staff for a report and recommendation to be
presented to the Planning Commission. A preliminary draft of the City staft's report and
recommendation shall be given to the City's Planning Commission at least ten (10) five ('D
days prior to the meeting at which said report and recommendations are to be presented. The
final report andrecommendati 0 ns of the City stalf are to be entered and made part of th e
permanent written record of the Planning Commission meeting.
Subdivisions
.
11-3-2: PRELIMINARY PLAT:
(A) HUNG: F illeen (15) copies of the preliminary plat shall be liled with the C it y Clerk.
The requircd filing fec as established in Chapter 10 shall be paid, and any necessary
applications for variances from the provisions of this ordinancc shall be filed with the
requircd fee bcfore the proposed plat shall be considered officially tiled. All plats shall be
aceompanied by an abstractor's certificate, properly certified, identifying the owner of the
property in question and the OWners of all properties situated within three hundred fifty (350)
feet of the boundary of the property in question. '!"he proposed plat shall be plaeea on the
... -- ."'i '1 .
or
11- 3 - 3: Fl N AL P LA T: A fter the prelimi nary plat has been approved, the final plat may be
submitted for approval as follows:
(A) APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Following apProval of the
Preliminar Plat b the Cit Council a Final Plat ma bc snbmitted for a roval. The
20mn, Administrator shall lace the ro osed Fipal Plat on the a -enda of the next Cit
Council which is no less than three 3 weeks later than the date of submission. No Fipal Plat
a lication shall be considercd com lete unless that a licant shall have alsn submitted a
revised Preliminar Plat which bas becn revised to reflect all re uired conditions of a roval
a si ncd co of tbe Develo. ment A reement for the area sub 'cct to the Final Plat shall havc
aid all bills duc for rocessin - of the Preliminar Plat and has Jrovided evidence of
ode, uate financial securit for com letion of the construction work in the ro osed lat. If
the City Council determines it necessary, the final plat shall be filed with the City Clerk and
.
submitted to the Plunning Commission at least twenty (20) days prior to a Commission
meeting at which consideration is requested. During the said twenty (20) days, the City staff
shall examine the linal plat and prepare a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Approval, disapproval, or any delny in decision of the final plat will be conveyed to the
subdivider within ten (10) days aller the meeting of the City Planning Commission at which
such plat was considered. In case the plat is disapproved, the subdivider shall be notified in
writing of the reason for such action and what requirements shall be necessary to meet the
approval of the C omm issi on. I I' the plat is disapproved, a waiting period of one hundred
eighty (180) days shall lapse before another application can be filed on that tract of land. In
case the p rel i m i nary plat is approved, the linal plat must be fi led wi thin one (I) year 0 I'
preliminary plat approval or the approval is not valid.
11-8-2: CONVEYANCE BY METES AND BOUNDS: No conveyance in which the land
conveyed is described by metes and bounds shall be made or recorded if the parcels
described in the Conveyance are five (5) acres or less in area aod three hundred (300) feet in
width unless such parcel Was a separate parcel of record at the elfective date of this
ordinance. Building permits will be withheld for buildings or tracts which have been
snbdivided and conveyed by this method, and the City may retuse to take OVer tracts as
streets or roads or to improve, repair, or maintain any such tracts.
.
a.
of record to create a arce1 contormin , to the re
applicable zoning district; or
b.
The ur ose of the subdivision is to divide one
Said admi nistrati ve snbdi vision shall be sub' cct to a roval of the Zonin Adm inistrator
who ma at his or her discretion refer the subdivision to other Cit staff for review and
recommendation. If the Zonin Administrator a roves the ro. osed subdivision he or she
shall . lace the ro osed subdivision on the a enda of the next Cit Council meetin which is
no less than three 3 weeks from the date of a Com lete submission.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -- 07/05/05
7.
"ublic Hearin : Consideration of a re Oest for a Conditional Use Permit for a
conce t sta e Planned Unit Develo ment for Monte Club VilJas. A lieant:
L&G. I-LC. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants have proposed a 26 unit detached townhouse project that would
replace the Monte Club restaurant and develop the north side of the Monte Club hill.
Staff had discussed alternative design that involved Some trade of land to allow for an
extensive park and pathway connection between Fenning Avenue and the City's park
and Water tower property to the east of the subject land. A major component of
staW s concept Was the attempt to preserve tree cover and the natural view 0 f the
Monte Club hill.
.
The Parks Commission has recommended another alternative that woufd involve a
combination of the City's park dedication requirement and a purchase of development
land, rather than a land trade. In this concept, the City would pennit the south three
quarters of the project to proceed as plan ned, with access to the project area ocCurring
ITom the upper level. This would result in a park dedication requirement of
approximately one acre of land area.
Because the most valuahle section of the north one-quarter of the project area (ITom a
tree COVer standpoint) is in the northeast Corner of the site, the City would acquire this
portion through park land dedication requirement. The remaining northern tier of the
development site would be acquired hy purchase from the City's park dedication
funds.
This concept would preserve the existing City park land intact, and provide lor a
sloped and wooded corridor between the existing parkland and Fenning A Venue. The
corridor would he between 250 and 300 leet in width, and would preserve the existing
slopes and vegetation on the north boundary of the property. With the applicant's
current layout, 19 units would remain in the project, however, it appears that onc or
two more may be possible.
The applicants are currently investigating this alternative and staff should have more
information for the Planning Commission at the meeting.
Planning Commission Agenda -- 07/05/05
.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Concept Stage Planned Unit Developmcnt for Monte Club Villas
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUO for 26 units as
proposed by the developer, subject to normal park dedication requirements as
recommended by the Parks Commission.
2. Motion to recommend approval oftbe Concept Stage PUD, for 19.21 units,
using a combination of park dedication and purchasc to preservc the north
250-300 feet of the property as public park.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PIID, based on a linding
tbat tbe existiog land use designations of Commercial and Medium Density
Rcsidential should be retaincd.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staif recommcnds approval Alternative 2, subjcct to the ability to work out an
appropriate purchase price with the property OWners.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Concept Stage PUD Site Plan
B. Parks Commission Recommendation
C. Public Comment Letter
-
-
2
.
- - J
1
_J
1
;i; 1
--;::-1
f~;
1
::: 1
:.' ~
.
,,-L
f,....f_~,J-L- ......."....."...
~ ~.~.~..~..~-_J
./
SUMMIT POINTE ROAD
OUTLOT A
12,150 sf
-~-----
~-~~'
- ~~~!~,
- ---- -"--:-= __.---1
I
I
.5 L~
1/.885 s'
'II!I.I']
-~-
'7
/
-~~t~
-,--
I
I
I
I
I
-~~~----....
-....... ---- - _ _ ...J
,7A
I
,
r-----
---1-
~--~+
,
,
1_.
~~
//\
// \,
// ;\
/ \
I \
\
,
;
-~---.................-
'Q,
---._-~~
.
..
....
y
~
~
~. I,
" ... ..At ,
Developm.
Area \
f /
/
""""
~ ,,~.i"
-
-78
.
Angela Shumann
Page 1 of 1
From: monticello chambe, [mOnticellochambe'@tds net]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 9:43 AM
To: Angela Shumann; Jeff ONeill
Subject: Fw Monti Hill Look-out
7C
Thought t'd fO'Wa'd this to YOu guys. do au' Planning commissione's have emails??
---,- Original Message _____
From: Gummajeane@ao/com
To: info@monticellochamber.com
Sent: ThUrSday, June 09, 2005 3'30 AM
Subject: Monti Hill Look-out
tn a 'ecent lette, to the edito, of the Monticello Times, I 'ead a lette, aSking if the city oIMonticello could Save
part of the Monti Hill fo, a scenic ove,look. That is an EXCELLENT ide a The Chambe, (Of WhiCh I am not a
membe, as I don't OWn a bUSiness) WOuld do themselves a big favo, if they COUld/woUld get on boa'd with this
idea I have t,aveled qUite a bit and I have d'iven to towns and stayed OVemight in towns, just because they have
advertized a look.out 0' "Scenic Ove,look" Winona becoming one of my all time favo'ite Cities With that Ove'.look.
(it eVen had SUch an innuence on Us that au' San deCided to go to COllege thece!) How about you SEE What you
Can do With this idea M, St'ele, has??? Peace Jeane NelSon Monticello MN aust a citizen and neighbO")
.
;/9/2005
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7105105
8.
Public Hearin - Consideration of are uest for a Conditional Use Permit for a
840 s uare foot Detacbed Accesso Structure in an R-I Sin Je-~'amif District.
APPlicant: Barrv Spiers (FP/ASj
REFER}i:NCJi: AND BACKGROUND
Barry Spiers is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
construction of a second garage on his propeny at 3623 Brentwood Drive in the
Grove1and neighborhood. The new garage would be detached, and a total of 840
square feet in area. The existing attached garage is approximately 508 square feet
The Zoning Ordinance permits a total of up to 1,200 square feet of garage space as
pennitted accessory space for an R-I Single Family home. In addition, no accessory
building can exceed more than 10% of the rear yard area. However, up to 1,500
square feet of total area can be constructed with a Conditional Use Pennit, under the
following conditions:
.
(a) Accessory building space is to be utilized Solely for the storage of residential
personal propeny 0 f tbe oCCUpant of the principal dwelling, and no accessory
building space is to be utilized fiX commercial purposes.
The parcel on which the accessory bUilding is to be located is of sufficient
size such that the building will not crowd the open space on the lot.
(b)
( c) The accessory bui ldi n g will not be so large as to have an adverse effect on the
architectural character or reasonable rcsidential use of the surrounding
property.
(d) The accessory bUildings shall be constructed to be similar to the principal
building in architectural style and bUilding materials.
The applicant's rear yard is approximately 8,036 square feet io area, and as such, to
meet the 10% threshold, staff would recommend that the applican, reduce the size of
lhe garage by 40 square feet in order to meet the ordinance reqnirement. In such case,
the tnlal square footage of the garage space on the propeny, as recommended, would
be 1,308 square feet.
With the exception of the 10% threshold, the applicant's plans and application letter
indicate an intent to meet the requirements of the Condilional Use Permit provisions
with regard to materials, use, and location.
Becanse the bUilding is localed at the rear of the /01, it may be appropriate to require
some shrub and ornamental tree planting on the sidc and rcar of the building to soften
its impact on neighboring propenies. The plantings shonld help to miligate
neighborhood concerns over the proximity of lhe building to adjoining propeny.
Planning Commission Agenda -- 7/05/05
.
The site plan illustrates no driveway or paving surlace to the proposed garage. Stalf
would ask that the applicant clarify for the Commission any intent in this rcgard.
Driveway dcvelopment is not considered appropriate in this neighborhood.
Planning Commission has granted similar CUPs in the rccent past, including those at
4537 Cobblestone Court and 3657 Brentwood Drive.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision I:
I. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Pennit for a dctached
accessory garage, with the conditions as follows.
aJ The applicant meet each of the requicements of the zoning ordinauce, iucluding
the 10% of rear yard and 1,500 square foot thresholds, and all appl icah/e
setbacks. This condition requires a reduction of 40 square teet from the proposed
garage.
.
b) Landscape plantings arc added to the sides and rear to soften the impact of the
huilding on adjoining parcels.
c) No driveway should be extended to new accessory building.
2. Motion to recommend denial ofthc Conditional Usc Permit, based on a finding
that the building would be out of character with the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENJ>A TION
Statrrecommends approval ofthc CUP, based on findings that the building will meet
both the intent and the specific standards of the zoning ordinance. The rcar yard lor
this parcel is of adequate size, and the 10% rule was designed to ensure that large
accessory buildings do not overwhelm the open feel of the lot or the neighborhood
The applicant mcets the threshold with this project. With the comments that the
building will be finished to match the housc, landscaping is added on the side and rear
of the building facing adjoining property, and the 1,500 square loot maximum is met.
planning stalfbelieves that the building meets the requircments for CUP approval.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Letter from Applicant
C. Site Survey
D. Project Specifications
E. Public Comment Letter
2
-/
!'>..I t,
.
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
L8A
'.a.,._". _"'.
'"---. -"- "_n,." n."
~1~!l'3W
L
lJJ!!lS
~:
-<.
....
. '-. -. .,.....
""" -A..,..
~ :
~ :
'. -.... .. '.
."
r:>
,.., ,
~ .'
r-
'. . "(1
"-- --'- "_n _ '_ ".
IlStl3J >IIIl#cI 3HoN:
311llOJ./ SMl3allJ~
r~S31" llMId ~
31XDOIo/ s'0la9113flf
- - .. - , ". '.. ~ .. ..
.".. - '-'. -'. ..
/.-...
.. - - - .. .. .. .., "'.. ~ - - '.
- '-"'..
. .....---.
:3:J
.L:J:3:rc
;,
.
To whom it may concern,
~
My name is Barry Spiers and I am applying for this conditional Use pennit to build a
detached garage behind my home. The size of the building proposed is 28 ft. deep by 30
feet wide. I am sending along a simple drawing of the Proposed building. It will have a
shingled roof with vinyl siding and trim to match my home. I also plan to landscape
around the building with landscaping block, rock and shrubs. I wish to build this size of
building because my existing garage is a standard three car garage, 20ft. deep by 30 ft.
wide. The third stall is only l8ft. deep. I have barely enough room for my vehicles, let
alone stomge. I wish to build the building large enough to accollUDodate a boat and two
pl""e four wheeler trailer, and still have room to walk around them. Thank you for your
consideration in advance.
~. ~s ectfu11y,
S · r"\
.. t,.J - '-f-J
Barry Spiers
.
ELEVA nON:
. -, ..." n r UI"'iAN ,
:OPPOSITE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LOT 4,
;8LOCK 3, GROVELANO ADDITION
960.83 FEET
Il'lSs.\
88
. ,
.
(8 SHALL BE VERfFl
:rE INSPECTION.
.
Plbfv~1 011\;' IJ/"")
~itf
----..........,-'-,~,.
.,-"._,._~._-~-
---
PROPOSED ELEVA TIONS/SETBACKSI
::OVEa ~~I
- ~fk -----:J
"-...^""""'"""-...."'-....,..".....~. ,._---.~--.............,~
\.1(: e'f'" JAR' E' FOO'r-1! <.'f;:. '''''~''''
'.... viALl - I n~h.. i
lED FOR ZONING!
2ii/[MTt" ~ !
......."............".-.--- ..----1
LOT 4, BLOCK 5, GROVELAND 2ND ADDITION
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE INVERT:
LOWEST S/bL,:PP,E"!lNG: ~~~~~
. , ,'.i 1'. ~ ,~.< '"
J on'y eoa.nenta shOWn are from plata of I'IIcOrd of Infarrnotlon proyJded by dl..t
"a. ClIrtIfy that th;. "''''''y _ pt8pared by m. or under
'f Kt auPtnfsfon, and that f am a duly Regllltered Land
rWl)Or under the lawII of the State of Minnesota.
J:Ye.yed.P.vJ~.fL!*l!!_.::::..~5TH day of AUGUST
......j r:l. ~,-'-.I~\ ;-",\ ,r ,-, .., f
.20
01
Signed
'-,- ','" ,~:....! I .
Inf (if\! "(>If:: fr\.,",> - !
r"~
.".. ,~
.... ',.1
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -- 07/05105
.
9.
I'ubJic Hearin : Consideration of arc uest for a Variance to allow
encroachment of an cnt vestihnle into the re.uircd 30 foot front ard setback
in an R-l zonin~ district. APplicant: Oavid Vukelich. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
The applicant bas requested permission to construct an addition to the Iront ofbis
singlc family home. The existing home is Coustructed at the 30 foot front sethaek
line. The proposed addition would be eight feet in width, extending into the front
yard setback by -' feet.
Tbe entry wiff provide for weather protection for persons entering the home, and sucb
additions are oflen beneficial in providing wcather protection for the structure itself
The applicant further notes that due to the size of tbe entry in this location, they have
physical difficulty when people are moving in and out of the house.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision I:
.
I. Motion to approve the variance for front yard setback encroachment of 3 fect
to accommodate a front entry addition, based on a finding that the CUrrent
design interferes with reasonable use of the property due to mobility and
maintenance.
2. Motion to deny the variance for front yard sctback encroachment, based on a
finding that the property is being put to reasonable use without the
vanance.
STAFF Rf~COMMENDA TION
Staff recommends approval of the variance. As noted, while the currcnt house meets
zoning requirements, the entrance creates mobility issues and can result in long-tenn
maintenance problems as well.
SLJPPORTING DAT1
a
,.,
A.
B.
C.
Site Plan
Site Photos
Applicant Narrative
\J\
\f\
I
0
. ~
iff J ,
G I !Iii
0
vJ
If\ ~
CJ
o
!a
'"
~
en
<5'
::>
'"
Cl.
~"
~H
--<
;<>
--<
r-
o
e:<J
S :<J
~ ~
e j z
o
~~
.
..
/
I~j"-
/ r-.. -.Y
A '"
/ ~,
/ !f
r-.. '<-
~r
"-
V. l
-l
-I
o
TI
m
r-
o
2
(J)
"'0
m
()
-I
o
:2
o
m
Z
Z
.....
r.n
-<
(Jl
"-'
w
w
D
>
--I
fTl
~
-:S
C>
.0
~
\j
~
~
'-'--IV>
~f5~
'" '-'
~j;~
l.I'>:Il
"'--<-<
,.." I--..!
"'Zl.l'>
<:"''''
""
II ,.." ",
r-:a
lOo:!::
on :I:
~f.O .,
0'1-....,J 'j.
"'-co./>
. ,
t; "'"',
3::0"....
.....c:o
Zr-m:r;
~...~:;;
V>:<J:Om
~:;'i~r;o
>..... -<
r.nr;o
--1-<"
fTlJ::en
igm~
Clo......
r-:r:J~
~c-<
ClZ--I
~:r.;
'-":0""
C --I
:03::
~-<--I
-<DI
DI--l'-'
:0::0""
s~~
o"-lc
mr.n:D
::0<::<
1J'"
--1"1-<
I :0 .
m<
'~1J
l>-,..."
""0>
'-"zz
0>0
'"t'Jes:a
:t--l:1J
mIen
"" "
r.n--lo
--I :0
>.....--1
--I
m".",
3:: "
.....--IZ
Z::I:O
"".....
~cn~
n"n
--Ir->
0><
:Dz;
......0
Inz
>0
"J:>
Ll
:D"
00
<z
mln
0--<
:0
Ole
-< n
--<
....'-'
i'1i~
r-n
~~
>Ol
'm
'"
"'.....
c:;"
......
r-e
Oz
.........
Z.....
""
> -H"
-o::r:!;
"''''r
"'00
0_:>;
~~G")
O::l''''
lD_."
-(0",
:iZ:S6
mC1~
O::lJm
-~O
::/:f!!!
"'>>-.;
"'--1m
eftim
ifjo~
1'11:00
"'>-
. -2:
Z'"
:to)>
"'",
"'1'11
l>_
is'''
J>
"'0
"'''
l>o
0:0
-0
""l>
"'2:
"'0
em
I..::..................... '...........
-'
.....
A
--I r-
>0
Ill,,;
'm
mln
.....
n
~~
.....2
=:~
~~
, '"
C
OJ
L.
m
n
-<
(rl;,. -<
enn:r;
"'--<m
<c
.....>r-
nr-o
~ ~
"'om
, m '"
"....
....
:r."
r-
>0
Zo
0:0
mm
r-r-
mm
~~
--<--I
..........
~~
0......
""'In
~ig
"'",
~~
>n
z....
o
....
::0:0
>
....--1
m:r:
J:>m
mn
r-o
"'z
<-<
>;:0
-<>
.....n
~~
0;0
~
"'....
mO
"'0
g~
"'m
mJj
:Ilz
<.....
.....z
~m
0.-... c
"""""-I'::c;z
"'.....,
m",-<
:D
f'T1~""
>:o:r-
~r;;~
"'-<3:::
m m
""L:Z
.....""....,
~ ,.- <.n
~G;o
"'z
~>~
nOm
Cl8n
;::;r ?5::1f 0
,.. ".0
n ;lJ i:
"""'" ,." r- j'_
6 ~ g/~
~ -< >-
....,
......
o
z
'"
""
~
J(
~
:Q
~
0'
n1
...., ."
o 0
:n
!Jl m
15 n
I 0
!Jl Z
o '"
..... ....
, (g
". n
Z --I
o ~
'"
>
-<
m
:D
'"
c.n
>
Z
o
0-0'"
"7ll>",
-2:
....Zo
;,;....;,;
men;!:
",-OJ>
mO",
,...."
"'0
n=z: ,'1l
~~:;;
z!tiS
~O;l~
5f;~
...."'"
- o-..J
~~b;
,01.1>
o'
o,'\)
"0
",."
'--I
2:
:E
'"
~ n r Ol>o.g:;
:n )> 0 1 @li 0
..... :n -I :;:
G) Cl 0
....
:r H .... '"
--l 2::01 t:I"""Or"'\xr--~:o~
)> . :n:O><<::)>:Do
n r )J.O~tt:I:i~z 01
to :i~~35o~~ );J
0 )>-
c::: :r r- ~~z ZPSJ -g
z: H 0 mom~~~c-~ .....
--l r- n . ::::t: '.~ n
.-< r- ;:0;: ~~~~~~~ '" ".-
en E5~gtn-;--j~ n -Z
W )>-
:z ,.,. :(:)l..:z:m r.n....,., r-
[n-lO--f fTlo m
1-1 0 6~ --t~ .....
Z c: iijr;; ~O Z
z :n ""
fTI -i > n en ."
> 0 m
en ::c ;j "1J m
0 CJ "1J ....
m
-I J> :z CJ
J> 0 -<
0 >
H -<
-i r-
H g
0 If'
Z
H
Z
n
'ii
--I
en
:(
~A
/
/
/
01
""
'"
'"
<'
>-
r
c
rn
lJ
r
c:
en
:r:
a
:r
rn
en
()
fTl
:::u
-i
J)
n
)>
-i
6fTl-.-{
::OO~
.,,~
C/)....
C....
:::0-"
<
f1l
.
CURRENT ZONING:
o Agricultural/Open Space
o Residential
o Business
o IndUstrial
AO
Rl
PZM
I-I
RIA Rl
Bl B2
I -IA 1-2
(CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX.. CIRCLE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT)
9(;,
FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Proposed ZODmg:
RlA R3
BJ B4
R4 R-PUD PZR
CCD
FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Size of Parcel to Be Divided:
~
,.,
FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY Proposed Name of Plat:
---------
A~~.:..2.:L.tL_ m '01 ~^d Li.Vvt !::__^
City: IV\. 0"'--\-'\ ""'-1\ 0
pri~~~~:D"-'..)IQ_~~_cl
Day Phone No.: 70 ~ ... 24 S; _ ILl 22.
Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat:
------------------
Total Acres in Parcel to be Platted:
------
-----
--------
FOR V ARIANC E ONL y, P..... Id<nlify t', ..i... ."."" ".dl..., " '''d,'ip, ...t J."'I, ....... .to vorl.....
State: t\J Zip Code: ~~S-~ 2-
-_______~-Mail Addres~~~~~~i.L
FAX No.:
----------
-----------------------------------------
-----
----~lL~~--~=~I:d.L~.--S:\j-ft~l_\"l-~~-~~-=<Lf--
---~---"=;::---L.r~~___Ck"_'_'t'.. ~"'.-,-. "u..JJ~J-.--.---
",,-,,1. / ---" ,........ ". --"'> ~.,., .,.J ._ ~q~ L _",
--" ~---~---+......- ,-""'. ~-~--'--'-'-~--~ ----
--:.~<--~>&...--"T=~-u.ib.~~c~""6--h.-~-.6~"_"L___
--~~.d'-_4kL.__ptap-'-~--_______________
- . ,. . . \6.." . -. . . . \ .1 . ,
-----~"""....w...-'M'=--lL--"'--""\.u"""-~~'t-~=.~'\,__.k""'_U.;:
". d , r. I ;/] _ ~
---->..~~"'--+"-~~"-<Y~'-'--,s.._~=uL""___~ """,,<<_
--b.-f'UI"-'.c~~--~--=-......w.LL_~_"""'_k_"'h.L_o:L___
--'--F.i!..t.~-.i?!~_~~~._, L_____----:~------:--_____________________
. 1" ",.. ...,.. " V'~t" tr.t
---~__'_f"<_, --'f"~~L-h._____________
.
.
APPLICATIONS WILL ONLy BE ACCEPTED WITH ALL REQUIRED SUPPOR TINe DOCUMENTS
.
.
~,
r"
I
I
I
.1
-
?' p~~
~ r~
.r..
....
01
o
:: ~
I i
r S.
:z~i
01 (tIC.
J!:w1
~8~
IL ~
C;i'"
\",CI)
~\'"
..of'
~r
88
~
B
~.V
.. ,
.;i'
:i~
r
,
!J
I
;.
I
I
I
I !
/..""" ""1
,
I
I
~..
N.
.,
'"
s:
'"
~
t-.
:r
-
9//
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05/05
.
10.
uest for a Conditional Use Permit to
in the Central Communi District.
REFF:RENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking approval to construct a drive-through window on the south
side of their building at 4'h Street and Walnut Street. In the CCD zoning district,
drive-through windows require ConditionalLJse Permits due to the pedestrian
orientation of the district, and potential conflicts with automobile traffic gencrated by
these facilities. The terms of the CUP are listed in the zoning ordinance as follows:
[DJ Drive-in and convenience food establishments as allowed in the "B-3" district,
and subject to fOllowing additional conditions:
I. The design of the site promotes pedestrian access aqjacent to and
along the property.
2.
No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty-four (24) feet in width or
less shall be permitted.
.
3. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by
the City ten Use in public areas of the "CeD" district.
4. The building, site, and signage meets the standards for thc "CCD"
district, and design review approval is granted by the designated
Design Advisory Team.
5. Drive through facilities comply with the requiremcnts of Subdivision
148-5 rEJ of this chapter.
6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan.
.
To accommodate the facility, the applicant is proposing to revise the curb cut
locations along 4'h Street, resulting in a central access that splits to two egress drives,
one on either side of the access point. There are currently two curb cuts on this side
of the building. The drive-through window facility would be provided by a vacuum
tube system to convey transactions between the driver-side window in the west-
facing vehicle and the pharmacist.
Planning Commission Agenda - 071OSlOS
.
The following issues are raised by the plan:
a. The location of exit curb cut near the intersection and stop sign on 4th Street at
Walnut Street.
b. The need for three curh cuts and short stacking spacc for vehicles waiting for
the drive~through.
c. Maintaining pedestrian access via sidewalk and landscaping.
d. Lighting and signage.
With regard to the location of the exit curb cut, the primary concern would be
assuring that exiting traffic is righHurn only, to the stop-sign controlled intersection.
I ,eft-turning traffic from the exit lane could raise conflicts with traffic leaving the
intersection.
.
As noted in the ordinance language, only two curh cuts are permitted for drive-
through facilities in this district. It would appear from the plans that providing an
entrance lane to the east and the exit lane as proposed would serve the site, and would
have the additional benefit of increasing the off:strcet stacking spaces during times of
peak Use (although Use is expected to he relatively low-volume). This design would
have the further benefit of avoiding multiple cuts in the sidewalk. Ifthree cuts are
retained as proposed, planning staff would recommend that the sidewalk areas are
constructed with pavers to diiferentiate them tram the bituminous driveway.
The landscape plan adjacent to the drivc-through window appears to be attractive and
should complement the facility. Thc plan notes that one boulevard tree willnced to
be replaced as a part of the project.
The lighting plan notes three existing lighting locations using "wall-pack" lighting
fixtures, as well as a down-light fixture under the drive-through canopy. The
photometric plan appears to meet the City's requirements. The applicants should
ensure that the fixtures are hooded in such a way as to avoid glare visible to the street,
including recessing the drive-through light under the canopy.
AI..'fERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision J: Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-through facility
.
I. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on findings that the facility
will be consistent with the requirements and intent of the CCD District, with
the conditions as listed in Exhihit Z. Conditions include ensuring right-turn
only exiting from the drive-through lane, reduction from three to two curb
cuts (or replacing grey concrete sidewalk with pavers matching the CCD
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05105
.
theme), and ensuring lighting fixturcs and signage mect the requirements of
the zoning ordinance and approval of the Design Advisory Team.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a linding that the drive-
through use is incompatible with the CCD and would raise safety issues due to
proximity to thc intersection.
STAFF RECOMMENDA TION
Statfrecommends approval of the CUP, with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Existing Conditions
8. Proposed Site Plan
C. Elcvations
D. Landscape Plan
E. Lighting Plan
.
.
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05/05
.
Exhibit Z
Conditions of Approval for Snyder Drug Drive-Through CI)P
I. Work with City Engineer to ensure design of exit drive is right-turn only.
2. a. Reduce curb Cllt locations to a total of two, or
b. Replace grey concrete sidewalk with pavers to match CCD theme.
3. Work with Design Advisory 'ream to ensure consistency of signage with CCD
requirements.
4. Verify consistency of lighting fixtures with zoning ordinance.
.
.
4
ill UI.HO' gC6-",6 'XRJ I.l:i:n.. gC6-?gR 'qd os"l;l. .., ~.,,"'~ I
p ,
gtCIJ~ .UUI 'R~U01~UU~111 33 NV\I 'Ol13::>Il.NOV\l
gl.C a'llns: l.. ,{HMI.l~1q IJZ~t, """p
"U! 'SLJ~lIHJHV HSSr 90lXIX 3ll0J.S OnllO S\J30ANS SNOl1dO All'<lNIV\lIl3lld - N'<Ild 31lS
-.. SLIOllMJ ". I::l&OJd I;:IU9IUO~
1111
o
--I
-1
UJ
o
~
6
~
u..
o
)...
I-
()
-----:i.,6
I
! .
i I~ I
II I
III i'
II .
1111'
III] "
IIII
II I
, II
I "
I II'
I I
I
II
I
i I
II
II
I
I .
I
II
Ii
IIIII
'1]11 '
IJlllrl.
g
f
(gOle ~19) ONI
~ j.. ,..
I':l 1!! !i
!,./ ~ ii p
i: ~ 11/ 'r: l!
hin !.'l!' l
;.. ;,~s " ~~ht ~ ~
J
! J
~ i i"
~I~ h ~ -J I~!
-J .. ~ "'I ! ~ ~l<~
~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~I-~
W 10 .. ~ 2 ~ s:h
~ ~ ) ~ \./
~ ,0~~,,' '1' ~ ~~-
:5 5 ~~~0.-_ ; ~ 5 ~~ !
~ ~ ~";., ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~~I
a:: b !'-' J: 0 ~~ ~lS
I-z U)z,:; -i:
u'/ ~ ctt~
0- Ol Ol OlOl
0 "'''' "'''' ~~~
~ ",OJ ",OJ
'"
~ !>I
'" xx xx xxx
.....:l
P ~
A - - ~ - ~ "' -
~
c::
u . '" >-
~n' '"
C/J :liQ
ffil "'~ "' z
c,,!:J !So o::~6
Z ",,,,
'" "'0 ,,-0 "'0'"
.... '" '" :;:: "'0 ~ ,:;::
E-< ~ ~o "'''' 5~~
....'"
Z z llit5 ='z ~o-'"
:$0 '
j 0 ",,, S~ 2~~
::!! o ~
'" 0>'" ~oc:
p.. 0 ...."-
0 "'''' "'0",
0> 0>'" ~~ ~~fu
~ --''''
"'0 "''''
z
o
~
W
-J
W
W
o
Ui
>-
a.
o
Z
<{
U
o
'"
~
~
13
8
!l;
I
o
!;;;
"
2
"'
'"
'"
0-
ffi
'"
g
it
'"
~
'"
..
-I
llD==l!!iJ-
"-fnjW~,iw
~
W
~~
Wo
0:;"
U"
CI)~
z
o
~
W
-J
W
o
z
W
ii:
o
~
I
I
I
I
) Jl~>~
J..----
-.~.-=.]'"".
----,-- l
\ '.
\\...0
m ~
i
i
]
I
I
I I
LJv/
.. ~
\j)
It
Will
rl\!)lt
~ \1 2
\j)D\j)
UJ
>
<(
I-
::>
z
....J
<(
S
.
-"=_."':"=='.='~':'=-'"
~
~.
~d
;\l~l!
d
*
--- ,.---.. ..---'.',---- .----- .---
M "IS HIP
.'='=":",."=",,:~""~
~="'-::'=-'-=~-'- :."
.(J",OS"I
__..,SO'.O"t/-(VERIFY),,_
UJ
~
I-
::J
Z
....J
~
~~!li
_~t-
i'
f
'I, -- -....~.~__~." __"~"'-----,,------"__
fiiW\ ~ I~' I
;\l \ ~)5 ~~J' ~. ~l< /
\ili.'. .i7- ~ -~~~' ' ~J[L1~-.
I ~<:Y I I ! "("J.. ..... I t f....a.... ~ -... EXIT ONLY
E IIO.lEXIT ~..., ',j.. .: ONE ..O..N.E.. -... ...... !G... r,DONOTENTEf.l
"=- _ ) rf ONLY / : WAy WAY. . ., _ -===""
~ ~ II !L,,':\ _<-l.Ol8 I~:) 14'" .'. . m:.~="I\ ,
- ~i ~... +- 4[~__ rT7 '" ~.,A(ixlSrINGlSuiNP~~~ y~
I---ll.~__-I" J: 1/ ~ "
51.a" I "Fe
J I
; f
~ I
~ I ~~
~~ 11"
, '1 ~
en ~Rj ~go en I-
86 ~ ll. zi!!:
Iii lU ~ Iii]! ~ 00
~iU ~g ~~ j:lJ..
f'jUl ~ ~II I I I I I II ..~:s~
j!;!>- <:::>
r- ~~ j 8J!o< :;!j:::::J!,z
"8~" j~ .. ~
@~t: S~ j:p,t "':E:u
- 8(!)~o
!.~...j .i!j '" '" ~ gl I I I I I I I I
_ ...."j 5::i <li II! ili::JUlJ..
~ ~
~
g
t; ..
i ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "3 "3 ~
"3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . "3 ~ ~ ~ . "3 "3 "3 "3
~ '1I ~ ~ '. .
~ '1I "3 .: .
.: '1I ~ '1I -.
': '1I .: . -.
"3 ~ .: ~ '.
~ ~ .: -.
"3 ~ ~ . ..
~ 'll "3 .
'lI ~ 'lI '. ..
"3 ~ "3 '. .
~ ~ "3 . -.
"3 '1I 11 ':; -.
'1I '1I '1I . '.
~ 'lI ~ . 'i
~ ~ ~ .
~ ~
"3 ~ ~
~
~
"'
~
U)
Z
o
~
::::)
-'
~
(!)
z
t=
%
C)
:::;
-= ., ., -;
~ . ~ .. -. ~ ~ ~ "3 . ~ a
.:..:....:...:..-:li a
~ 'lI 'lI . 'i .. .. -: 1I
'1I 'lI "3 .. '. '1I -:; 1I
"3 "1I ~ -. '. '~ ":l ~
'1I ~ ~ . -. ~ ., "
': ~ ~ ~ .. '~ 'lI "
'1I '1I '1I -: '.
w
a::
e
UJ
C)
::::)
a::
o
~
~ 'lI ~ ~ . "3 "3 . .,
"3 'lI "3 .. -. '; .. "3 ., "3 -.
~ 'lI ~ -. ~ ~ "3 ~ ., ., ..
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05/05
.
11.
Public Hearin2: Consideration of a reauest for a variance and amendment
to Conditional Use Permit for additional pvlon and wall si2na2e. Applicant:
Monticello Motors (Dennv Heckcrs Monticello Dod1!e). (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking a variance from the zoning ordinance to construct a
fourth freestanding sign on the Monticello Dodge propcrty, as wcll as additional
wall signage. The new signage is intended to identify a "Kia" dealership, in
addition to the two Dodge-Chrysler-Jeep and one Suzuki dealership signs
currently in place.
The current proposal would add the Kia pylon sign to the property (the exact
location does not appcar to be identified in the materials) as well as two new wall
signs to the existing building. Currently, one painted Kia sign is in place on thc
bui Iding.
.
The zoning ordinance allows one pylon sign per property, and the automobile
dealerships have been granted additional pylon signage where they have multiple
Irontage on major public roadways. The subject property has frontage on
Interstate 94 and Chelsea Road, a major collector street. In addition, the applicant
was granted a variance to add the Suzuki sign to the northcast corner of thc
property along 1-94.
In June of 2004, the applicant approached the City to establish the Kia dealership
on the adjoining "D&D" property to the cast, utilizing the existing pole buildings
and minimal site improvements, pending a future renovation of that site into a
contemporary dealership. It has been the City's understanding that thc occupancy
of the adjoining substandard D&D sitc was temporary until a more extensive
dcalership facility could be constructed. However, the adjoining site was
converted into a used-car facility, and thc Kia dcalership was established in the
same building as the Dodge store on the subject property. As noted above, some
Kia signage was added to the building at that time.
To consider a variance, the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning
Commission find a unique physical condition exists on the property that creates a
hardship in putting the property to reasonable use - one that can only be resolved
by granted a variance to the standard ordinance. No such condition is apparent on
this site. The building is fully exposed to the interstate as well as to Chelsea
Road. The only "condition" in this case is that the Kia franchise desires a
separate pylon sign identity.
-
The wall signage is appropriate, and would increase the identity of the Kia
franchise adequately on the current site. This would appear to be necessary to
-
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05/05
.
make reasonable use of the property f()r that dealership. If the applicant believes
that more exposure is necessary through the additional pylon, planning staff
would recommend that the original intent - renovation and new dealership
construction on the adjoining "1)&0" parcel- should be pursued where additional
pylon signage along the interstate would be possible.
r.'inally, because the Planning Commission is the decision-making authority on
variances, but only advisory on Conditional Use Permits, the actions have been
broken down into two separate actions. The first would relate to the pylon sign,
which requires the Cll P amendment, as well as action on a variance. The second
is for wall signage, which requires a variance only.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Variance and Conditional Use Permit Amendment allowing
additional pylon signage flJr Kia dealership.
.
I. Motion to approve the Variance and recommend approval of the
ConditionallJse Permit amendment, based on a finding that a hardship
exists that restricts reasonable use of the property, necessitating the
approval of a fourth pylon sign for the subject property. Approval of the
variance should be conditioned upon City Council approval of the Cll P
amendment, and a proper site plan indicating location of the sign.
2. Motion to deny the Variance and recommend denial of the ClJP, based on
a finding that no hardship is present, and that the applicant can make
reasonable use of the property under the current regulations without the
additional pylon sign.
Decision 2: Variance fl)r additional wall signage for Kia dealership.
1. Motion to approve the Variance for additional wall sign age for the Kia
dealership, based on a finding that the wall signage is necessary to put the
property to reasonable use, including a finding that additional
identification of the Kia dealership is appropriate to avoid confusion.
2. Motion to deny the Variance for additional wall signage for the Kia
dealership, based on a finding that the wall signage is not necessary to put
the property to reasonable use, and that the applicant has other options
with regard to this franchise based on previous zoning approvals.
-
--
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05/05
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance for the wall signage only, but
recommends denial of the variance and CUP for the pylon sign. The sitc already
has more pylon signage that permitted by the zoning ordinance, including the
same number of freestanding business signs as Monticello Ford and more
freestanding signage than either West Metro Buick~Pontiac-GMC or Gould
Chevrolet. There docs not appear to be any ordinance-based rationale to support
yet another pylon sign on this parcel.
The City has been more accepting of additional wall signage on large buildings to
identify "tenants" or unique retai I identities. Adding Kia signage to the current
building would not appear to be at odds with the building's architecture, and it
could be considered to be reasonable use to incorporate additional identification
flJr this franchise. As such, staff can recommend approval of the variance to the
wall signage as being in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
SUPPORTING DATA
-,
A.
H.
C.
Site Plan
Site Sign Inventory
Sign Plans
-
"
-,
.
.
III
l:
Ci3
'E
III
l:
<U
E
....
III
a..
6-
:E
III
....
III
m
Cl
III
Cl
"8
. Cl
.2
CD
(.'l
+::
l:
0
::E
lIB
LO
o
o
~
..-
co
.... .... ....
III III III
~ ~ ~
..c: ..c: ..c:
U U U
9 ci g
m III III
III III
~ ~ ~
Ig g :g :g ~
"8 "0 "0
0 0
III III Cl 9 Cl
~ ~ I I
..: ..: I I
I I I
III III I I I
I I I
~ ~ .2 .2 .2
Q) a; Q)
..c: ..c: (.'l (.'l (.'l
u u ~ +:: +::
l: l:
! ! 0 0 0
::E ::E ::E
"0 "0 ..: ..: ..:
0 0 III E
Cl Cl S <U S
1ii .0
~ ..: ..: III ..c: ~ :l III
ttI S oS ..c: ~ ...J ...J oS
us ~ III III III ~
<U en .~ :t :.i: 3: III III (.'l .~
III ~ III III .~ .~
m ~ ~ >< ~ N ttI .... Q 0. ><
0 :l <U III III S
::E u::: u::: CD CD en S2 () x x en en
Co . Co
a)
Qi ..- ..- ,...
N >< >< x
Ci3 "r "r "r
,... ,... ,...
s ~ (:) (:) 0
C\/ C\/ ~ '<:t ~
8 ,... ..- x Co .x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>< x C\/ ~ x 0 ~
<( Co Co C\I Co '<:t Co Co Co (0 Co
C\I ~ '<:t '<:t a) ,... C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I '<:t
:t:= ..... 0) 0) '<:t ..- ,... ,... ..- ,... ,... 0)
q
III
X
0
8
<(
~ III e
....
III :m l: l: l: l: .~ .~ III
= .Q .2 .2 .2 =
~ l: l: ~ ~ l: UJ (J) III III III III ~
I~ ~ a; a; ~ a; a; a; a; a; a; a;
a.. 3: 3: a.. ;: ;: 3: 3: ;: ;: ;:
~ III
<U 19
III 1ii
III .... III
C Q) III CD
..c: ~ 'E
0 u
~ ~ ~ ~
en ~ 3: z z z w w w w w w
~
...J
Lf1 ~
~ LJ') C"'
I V')
,.- -J \0
C\I ~ r-...
.
I V
f-... ~ N
ilut
". ca i
i! E--1
~
~
-q-
I
-q-
-
.:......:...:'.,...........,..::..........,.."...!.,..,:........,....'..... .....
.~
~
'"
ct
~ '"
~ <i. [
[t ~
Q ~ <( ;ij
~ 8
...... <( '" ~
" ~ ~
0 ~
8 "5l ~ ..
:t 'e- M ;;;
0. "
.
12'-411/16"
7'-5 15/16"
27'-0"
~
.....
KPS-7 @27'OAH
Total Square Footage = 73sq'
Account KIA
Dfllwn By J Allington
IP Rep. D Estep
All ideas, plans or
arrange-rnents indicated in
this drawing are copyrighted
and owned by ImagePoint
and Shall not be
reproduced. used by or
disclosed to any person,
firm Or corporation for any
purpose whatsoever without
written perrnission of
Project Title KIA KPS-1 30ft
Scale 1:64
AppflWed By
Date RlIY/sed
Date Crsated
Pg 1 of 1
2'- 15/16"
ImagePoint~
L_._~.
PO Box 59043
Knoxville, TN 37950.9043
1-800-444-7446
www.irnagepoint.com
,
I
i
I '"
I .,.
0
m E
0
'" 8
i ~r..o~
I ("r') t'l':I:;"o
. I 3~:; &
f2~~:;rE
I ~ ';;1 0 '--,
I
I ~g~~
Q..~-.l_
J ,
I +-'
C
~
~ ;
<<r '
S~
I
-
~
(Y)
C\J
I
I
I
I
..-
..-
L~~
V
I
CD
~<=E,5':"-g",E
m'-.:c.oEU'k::""..J:::.a,>
o v .~ '@ %- ~ 8 ~ c.
w ~ UOl..... U ..... OJ '=
V> - c... ~ ill 0 ~ '" '"'
C m 0 E ~ ,- ~ c
~,g;;;-"';:E::>i~
I Ul~,5raSs~~o._&
rn 'o..O'O~..cC::~::J(t;I
~ ~ '~ ~ ';il "0 ~ ~ .s E
- '" !." /5 .<= 3l :g, OJ< '0
~ !
~ !
&i' . ~ j
I I ! j ~
iB
Vi
~
o-J
~
o
~ ~
IsM ~ ~
I ; ~ j
I ~ I J ~
I.. _. _
ImagePojnt~
Recommendation
COMPANY KIA
SI1'E ,.,. MH011
ADDRES$
CRY. ST.
SURVEYOR
-= - ,-.... F\..;;., Ill! d OWIII
p.~ 1" KWI.........._1ogo
Sign :sires and placement are approximate - to be verified with a field survey prior to fabrication.
ImagePoint.
~
Recommendation
COMPANY
SITE 1011
ADORESS
CITY. ST.
SURVEYOR
KIA
MNOl1
Existing: Ch8nneI Letters
Pro~: KWL-S.& Kia wetllogo
Sign sizes and placement are approximate ~ to be verified with a field survey prior to fabrication.
Planning Commission Agenda 07/05/05
12. Public Hearin2 - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for Taco John's Restaurant. a convenience food
establishment in a 8-4 district. Applicant: JA T Restaurants
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Staff and the applicant are asking the Commission to table this item to the next
meeting of the Planning Commission in order to refine site plan details.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05/05
13.
for Jefferson at Monticello
DeveloDment. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
At its June meeting, the Planning Commission agreed to table action on the Jefferson
projcct to allow the developer to rcline its proposal in response to staWs report on the
many issues surrounding the project. Thosc issues werc raised as fundamental
Comprehensive Planning concerns that form the underpinnings for reviewing the
project. We have reiterated those questions below, for reference.
Since that mecting, the applicants have made a number of significant revisions to
their plans. Thesc include the following:
a. Reduction in the number of units to 2,272 trom nearly 2,700. The reduction
was accomplished by eliminating more than 400 attached townhouses.
The mix now stands at 802 detached single family (on lots ranging from
50 feet to 80 feet in width); 1,06 I attached townhouscs of varying styles,
and 409 senior housing units, which the applicant proposes to Count
separately. As now designed, detached units comprise approximately 45%
of the non-senior units in the project.
b. The bulk of the attached units were removed from the earlier phases of the
project, replaced by an expansion of the busincss park. Many of these
units were the lower valued units in the proposal.
c. Replaced attached units with detached units in thc southwest corner of the
project in a conceptual layout.
d. Of the attached townhouses, more than 25% directly front the golf course __
units that should prove to be of higher value as represented by the
developer. Several others arc across the street from the golf course, or
face a larger wetland amenity area.
e. Additional bu1fering has been added around the rural subdivision areas.
f Housing has been removed /fom freeway exposure, replaced by a proposed
ballfield complex.
g. While the appl icant wishes to retain the east to west phasing, the mix of units
in the first phases after the change to the plan result in a significant
increase in detached units.
Planning Commission Agenda- 07/05/05
.
The Planning Commission should consider the changes and the resultant concept plan
in light of the questions raised in the original stafl report:
.
The City's ability to finance, provide and maintain the extensive levels of
infrastructure necessary to support a development that would increase the
City's population by up to 70%, including sewer, water, regional roadways,
and a freeway interchange.
.
The market feasibility of the project in developing higher end housing, in light
of the developer's proposal to remodel the golf course into a high-level
facility over a period of 8 years, rather than "up-front". StaLf notes that in
similar projects in other locations, the amenities are provided at the beginning
to set the tone 1()f the project and attract the higher-end market. To reflect the
pattern in these other projects, the phasing would need to be reversed, or the
design of the project would need to be overhauled. While this concern is not
yet fully addressed, the changes in unit maix are a part of the developer's
proposal to address this issue.
.
a
Co:'ZV,n e
-41:iThis number is now significantlv reduced.
.
t~:f
e co~~ern$
This has also changed significantly with
the current revisions.
· The trade-off of large areas of commercial/industrial
and high-density residential development,
lJu~iflj:es~;i::;:~a~.~i~nd::i;::~B Glr@res.:.l~f..19\!l:ll:re;lfl:: The applicants revised plan has
doubled the area of the business park, closer to the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan for this area.
· The phasing plan for the project,
"l,It it);
~hu:il e:ll:>eCt. As noted, nearly 400
attached units have been eliminated from this area.
.
The items raised above need to be considered even before the many "smaller" issues
ofproject design, building architecture, neighborhood livability, retail use location,
public ballfield location, public park and pathway provision, and relationship to
existing land uses. This is not to diminish the importance of those factors, however.
2
Planning Commission Agenda- 07/05/05
.
There are several such issues that staff and others have noted, some of which arc not
possible to fully examine at the scale of drawings currently available.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Concept Stage PUD lor the Jefferson project as revised.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the revised Jefferson project, based
on a finding that the changes to the Land Use Plan arc consistent
with the overall goals of the City, and that the plans for unit mix,
unit style, and phasing are more elosely in keeping with the City's
development objectives for this area. This motion is intended to be
limited to the general components of the concept plan, and that
detailed design issues, including site planning, street layout,
architecture, and other details will require morc extensive review at
the time of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD
consideration.
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Jefferson Concept Stage PUD,
based on a finding that the changes to the Comprehensive Plan
necessary to accommodate the project are inconsistent with the
City's overall development objectives in this area, and that the
proposal will raise economic issues for the City in providing and
maintaining inlrastructure to support the project.
3. Motion to table action on the project subject to additional revisions as
directed by the discussion at the Public Hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Stall' believes that the changes to the concept plan have addressed many of the issues
raised by the earlier review. While there are several outstanding issues - many based
on financing and economic impacts on the City - it may be reasonable to recommend
approval of this concept plan in a limited fashion, and proceed to a more extensive set
of planning documents at the Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD level.
.
Although the Planning Commission's review has been focused on how the proposal
complies with the existing land use plan, a separate analysis can be made as to how
well the applicant's proposed Land Use Plan changes would meet the development
goals of the City. If those goals inelude high-amenity housing development, the
proposed golf course development - including the townhouse development adjacent
to the golf course and wetlands areas ,- can be viewed as fitting that vision.
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05/05
.
As noted in the proposed motion, there area volumes of details to analyze. The scope
of this Concept Stage approval, ifgranted, should be noted as being very narrowly
drawn. If the Planning Commission believes that any specific numerical objectives
should change, those should be stated as a part of any motion to approve, or as a part
of any findings to deny.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Developer's Packet to Include:
a. Revised Site Plan
b. Revised Phasing Plan
B. Revised Site Plan with Land Uses in Color
C. Revised Site Plan with Street System Highlighted
.
.
4
l
I
,
., ,.,,,'.'. .-'-.' ~,:
,": .'.._-"'~'" "., .... ......'
,-,
,..~,~ ~;."":"'-0:t!
.
.. ""~,~"-"'" .'..
.
.
~r~
iJll'
",ih
etjl
~ftl!
lIi ~
t ..
.."
~
Jl;
'OJ
~
,... i -
"~..r~"~,I=,..,! ~
....::Ia::!;;!~....:l ":)
I H i Iii fit g~ Q
I ~.i!lHII~;a:! 'X.
:' .. .. tal
~ 'nsUUhl!.9
'\ ~ :!:!:ll! f~ 2 ~
.
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
,'"
~
1r(\
i
v
~
~ ~
4 ~\
p. ~c hs.;;>
"r:' .' ,.J .:'1
r \ :~:!: I\;
..., ;'<<:." ~
i'i~";"':~"<'" .
e4i
U) "".. x
~ 1
\1\
.
'i
~l
J
~.
~
t
~ .'~
;:J~
tH:
Hjrr.
~t!f
~ht".
EJg~
[1%
~!
! 19
!U
'7
~
~
..J
.- A'
'&=:."
"tl'
~ '
;'1
li
if
V'
'i
. ',,~'.,'
'",'it "
- .. Ii." 01.1.
IH" !
"o! ".-r
" i-II
'" 'N:~/,~ 'I' ",,1'<
::w,~"
i.
".1
1
r
I
. .;~ ,'.
..::t..;. f'"
..~K::.cr:~
.,.
')"1;1'
l~, ;~';;;~l".'.~ ,:5'1'. -_.~!:"'-_"
~"",,. , I
..,.... ". I. i '. .
.:,,~;::" ..... : "t.r....,. . .~. _.' .... '.." .:H'_"" ..~.~:-.)" . ,
. !! ,'~....J
.. ~ r-; , ,
/,',,0',
_ ,'f
,. ,'<;~'-
.'._oi_
--."- t"r:: q
i. t._~
1...,,,-
....t- '....,~
'-1-1-
i...~~h
'''--'''IT"' .
t
I....'
~.
It.
~
s
~
~
:1.
~
':)
~
J
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05/05
14.
Consideration of a re uest to call for a Public Hearin to amend the Zonin
Ordinance b rovidin for increased setbacks for arkin in Commercial and
Industrial zonin!! districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
REFERENCE ANI> BACKGROLJND
The City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission call for a public hearing to
consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would change the parking
setback requirements to equal the size of the utility and drainage casements _ usually
6 feet on interior lot lines and 12 feet along streets. This change is requested to allow
for the placement of "small" utilities- cable TV, phone, underground electric, gas,
and similar facilities to be located in areas where access to the utility installation will
not require removal and restoration of parking lots, curbs, and similar private
facilities. The City also has occasional need for utility access in these areas, and the
existence of parking lot can become an issue -- both in the loss of available parking
during construction, but concerns over the provision and cost of restoration as well.
The current parking setback is 5 feet. Where no easements exist, staff will likely
seek a setback of 6 feet to allow for fllture easement acquisition if necessary, and to
be consistent with the change in other areas.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Motion to call for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance
changing the setbacks for parking areas.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StatT requests that the Planning Commission call for the hearing to be held at its
August 2,2005 Planning Commission meeting.